U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 87— DISTRICT COURTS; VENUE

28 U.S.C. § 1400

Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 936; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1020(a)(5), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4671; Pub. L. 105–304, title V, § 503(c)(1), (2), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2917; Pub. L. 106–44, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 223.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 109, and section 35 of title 17, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Copyrights (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, § 35, 35 Stat. 1084; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 48, 36 Stat. 1100).

Section consolidates section 35 of title 17, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with part of section 109 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in phraseology.

Subsection (b) is based on section 109 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with the following changes:

Words “civil action” were substituted for “suit,” and words “in law or in equity,” after “shall have jurisdiction” were deleted, in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Words in subsection (b) “where the defendant resides” were substituted for “of which the defendant is an inhabitant.” A corresponding change was made in subsection (a). Words “inhabitant” and “resident,” as respects venue, are synonymous. (See reviser’s note under section 1391 of this title.)

Words “whether a person, partnership, or corporation” before “has committed” were omitted as surplusage.

The provisions of section 109 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to process are incorporated in section 1694 of this title.

Jurisdiction and venue of patent suits against residents of foreign countries or persons residing in plurality of districts, see section 72a of title 35, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Patents.

Senate Revision Amendment

Title 17 of the United States Code was enacted into positive law by act July 30, 1947, ch. 391, 61 Stat. 652, and, in such enactment, section 35 of the prior title became section 111 of the new title, and all Acts from which sections of the prior title had been derived, were repealed. Therefore, this paragraph should read: “Based on Title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 109 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 48, 36 Stat. 1100), and section 111 of Title 17, U.S.C., 1946 ed., Copyrights.” By Senate amendment, section 111 of Title 17 U.S.C., is included in the schedule of repeals. See 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–44 amended section catchline generally so as to read “Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs”.

1998—Pub. L. 105–304, § 503(c)(2), amended section catchline generally, substituting “Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs” for “Patents and copyrights”.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–304, § 503(c)(1), inserted “or designs” after “mask works”.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–702 inserted “or exclusive rights in mask works” after “copyrights”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,303 cases (402 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 315 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Tex. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 315 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Tex. 2018). · cites it 10× “Venue in patent infringement actions is defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b). There is no doubt that any analysis of venue under 28 U.”
Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-23,322, 799 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 10× “§ 1391 (b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a). 1 However, when copyright infringement is the sole claim being alleged, it is misleading, and arguably disingenuous, to assert that venue may be proper under section 1391(b), the general venue statute, when section 1400(a) is the exclusive…”
Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a). This circuit interprets this provision to allow venue in any judicial district where, if treated as a separate state, the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction.”
Time, Inc. v. Frank Manning, 366 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1966). · cites it 7× “28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a). 7 Since Manning is a resident of New Orleans, venue in the Eastern District of Louisiana is clearly proper under section 1391(a).”
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 197 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2017). · cites it 2× “The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b), provides that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of…”
Westech Aerosol Corp. v. 3m Co., 927 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in TC Heartland , 3M moved on May 25, 2017, to amend its pending motion to dismiss to include an argument that venue was improper in the Western District of Washington.”
Pers. Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 922 (E.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 6× “ORDER RE: GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE Ron Clark, United States District Judge This case presents two issues underlying resolution of venue disputes under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b): (1) placement of the burden of proof; and (2) whether venue facts are analyzed as of…”
Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 599 (N.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 5× “28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b). The Supreme Court recently clarified that, for purposes of the patent venue statute, a domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation.”
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Va. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 1391 (c) ) instead of the patent venue statute ( 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b) ) or the provision governing improper venue challenges ( 28 U.”
In Re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “Under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b), “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant re- sides, or where the defendant has committed acts of in- fringement and has a regular and established place of…”
In Re: Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “In December 2016, the Supreme Court granted review in the TC Heartland case to address the correct interpretation of the term “resides” in 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b), which addresses venue in patent cases.”
In Re: Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “The district court misinterpreted the scope *1357 and effect of our precedent in determining that Cray maintained “a regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b). Accordingly, the court’s decision refusing…”
Show all 1,303 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) — 3 cases
Schacht v. Javits, 53 F.R.D. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).
Kogan v. Longstreet, 374 F. Supp. 47 (N.D. Ill. 1974).
Manning v. Time, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 985 (E.D. La. 1964).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) — 29 cases
San Shoe Trading Corp. v. Converse Inc., 649 F. Supp. 341 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Stanley Works v. Globemaster, Inc., 400 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Mass. 1975).
Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Nopco Chem. Co. & Quality Feeds, Inc., 388 F.2d 818 (4th Cir. 1968).
Century Wrecker Corp. v. Vulcan Equip. Co., 733 F. Supp. 1170 (E.D. Tenn. 1989).
De Luxe Game Corp. v. Wonder Prods. Co., 157 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.